Ross Gardler wrote:
> ... a rich client requires higher bandwidth.
This argument absolutely bogus.
Google Maps, for example, is a way richer client than, say, MapQuest but
consumes a fraction of the bandwidth, because using the web in a more
architecturally consistent way, it can take advantage of the browser (or
local proxy) caches.
If you were to deliver a mapping applications to, say, schools in
africa, which one would you use, MapQuest (where every click is a new
120Kb gif file) or GMaps (where there is virtually no traffic generated
at all after the initial load... which, for normally, can be consumed by
a local transparent proxy)?
--
Stefano.